[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3270-3276]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3650, HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND 
          HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND CONTROL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2010

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1168 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1168

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3650) to establish a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 
     Program, to develop and coordinate a comprehensive and 
     integrated strategy to address harmful algal blooms and 
     hypoxia, and to provide for the development and 
     implementation of comprehensive regional action plans to 
     reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived except those 
     arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Science and Technology now printed in the bill, 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening

[[Page 3271]]

     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Science and Technology; (2) the amendment 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules, if 
     offered by Representative Flake of Arizona or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, 
     shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable 
     for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 
3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control 
Amendments Act of 2009, under a structured rule.
  The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of 
the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 
resolution provides 1 hour of debate on the bill. The resolution 
provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Science Committee, the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as 
adopted.
  The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives 
all points of order against the bill, as amended. The resolution makes 
in order the amendment printed by the Rules Committee report if offered 
by Representative Flake or a designee. The resolution waives all points 
of order against the amendment except those arising under clause 9 or 
10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, harmful algal blooms, or HABs, are a growing problem 
along U.S. coasts and they impact almost every coastal district. Some 
algae, like red tide, produce toxins that contaminate shellfish and 
shut down shellfish beds to local harvesters.
  Severe red tide blooms can be harmful to tourism across the country. 
When red tide affects an area, people can't go in the water, seafood 
isn't bought and sold, and stores and hotels along the coast are empty.
  Over the past few decades, harmful algae have begun to bloom more 
frequently and with greater intensity. HABs are one of the most complex 
and economically significant coastal management challenges facing the 
Nation.
  We know that algae growth is influenced by a number of factors, 
including light, water temperature, salinity, and nutrient 
availability, but the factors that drive outbreaks like red tide are 
not understood as well, and additional efforts are needed to monitor, 
control, prevent, and mitigate these outbreaks.
  A professor at the University of Maine has done research that shows 
that the blooms start offshore and are blown towards shore by easterly 
winds. This sounds simple enough; yet in the field of red tide 
research, this was groundbreaking work.
  Addressing HABs on a national level requires a coordinated approach 
that involves a number of Federal agencies, including the EPA and NOAA. 
The underlying bill oversees the development and implementation of 
regional research and action plans to help coastal managers understand 
and deal with HAB outbreaks.
  New England, and Maine in particular, have been especially hard hit 
by outbreaks. Severe red tide events occurred in 4 of the last 5 years, 
causing tens of millions of dollars in lost income to shellfish 
harvesters.
  The shellfish industry is vital to the Maine economy, Madam Speaker. 
Over 2,000 harvesters and dealers depend directly on access to healthy 
shellfish beds to make their living and support their families. Maine's 
Department of Marine Resources estimates total annual economic value of 
the shellfish industry in Maine to be about $50 million.
  Last spring and summer, the shellfish industry in Maine was shut down 
because of severe red tide bloom. At its peak, the density of the red 
tide toxin was nearly 100 times the federally mandated quarantine level 
and closed 97 percent of the State's shellfish beds and 100 percent of 
the offshore beds in Federal waters. Many shellfish harvesters were 
stuck on land for months with nowhere to go. This all occurred during 
the peak of the tourist season, and the results were devastating.
  Coastal families rely on the income generated during the short summer 
months to carry them through Maine's long, cold winters; and the timing 
could have not have been worse for these hardworking harvesters. Not 
only were they missing out on the best time to sell their product, but 
they had no way of knowing when it would be okay to return to the 
mudflats. The uncertainty made it impossible to know whether to look 
for other employment or to wait and see if the next week would bring 
clear water.
  Predictions for 2010 indicate that it could be an even worse year for 
red tide in the Gulf of Maine. According to a recent NOAA report, the 
cysts that cause red tide are at some of the highest levels ever 
measured, 60 percent higher than what was observed in the sediments 
prior to the historic red tide of 2005.
  While red tide in Maine is a coastal issue, HABs are increasingly 
occurring in our inland lakes and rivers. Blue-green algae blooms in 
some Midwest lakes and the Great Lakes have killed dozens of dogs and 
poisoned people all over the region. Frequently, these freshwater algae 
blooms are caused by a combination of droughts and fertilizer runoff. 
These outbreaks lead to rashes, sore throats, and other health 
concerns. This bill helps address algal blooms in lakes as well.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bill, and I am glad 
that Senator Snowe from Maine is a leader on this issue in the Senate 
and is the author of the Senate companion legislation. I look forward 
to continuing to work with her to improve the economic health of our 
coastal communities.
  This bill will help shellfish harvesters in every coastal community 
by improving our knowledge and ability to predict red tide blooms. We 
need a national strategy to address HABs and to provide for the 
development of regional action plans to reduce HAB outbreaks.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the 
underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my Rules 
Committee colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from North Haven, 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I sat and listened attentively as my colleague talked 
about the challenge of dealing with algal blooms and hypoxia research. 
And I am reminded, as I mentioned in the Rules Committee yesterday 
afternoon, of the rather famous vice presidential debate that took 
place in 1992.
  Now, vice presidential debates, Madam Speaker, are not terribly 
memorable, but in 1992, for those who are old enough to remember, we 
saw three top-tier Presidential candidates, George H.W. Bush was 
running for reelection, Bill Clinton was the Democratic nominee, and H. 
Ross Perot was running as an independent candidate. In that vice 
presidential debate we saw Vice President Quayle, challenger Al Gore, 
who went on to become Vice President, of course, and this totally 
unknown figure, Admiral James

[[Page 3272]]

Stockdale, a great man whom I was privileged to know. The famous line 
that came from that vice presidential debate, Madam Speaker, was from 
not Vice President Quayle or Vice-President-to-be Gore, but from 
Admiral Stockdale, who looked into the camera and said, ``I'm sure 
you're asking who am I and why am I here.'' That term went on to be 
used throughout the decade plus in our vernacular.
  I was reminded of that as we look at what it is that we're doing 
right here, Madam Speaker. One can't help but ask, who am I and why are 
we here? And having listened to the very thoughtful statement on algal 
blooms and hypoxia research from my friend from North Haven, I would 
like to yield to her, if I might, Madam Speaker, to see if she could 
give us a really good description of why it is that we are here at this 
moment at 9:25 Friday morning when this was a measure that had been 
considered under a suspension of the rules and we had, mid-afternoon 
yesterday, completed the work and I know many of my colleagues have 
gone into their districts.
  So I would like to yield to my colleague and ask her to provide us a 
clear, clear definition as to exactly why it is that we're here.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I appreciate my colleague's yielding, and I 
appreciate his thoughtful comments about red tide and hypoxia research.
  I can only answer for the residents of my home State, who are deeply 
concerned about algal blooms, red tide, the economic impact in our 
communities, and the importance of passing this legislation so that the 
research is done.
  Mr. DREIER. Well, Madam Speaker, let me reclaim my time and say that 
we had an emergency Rules Committee meeting yesterday to bring this 
measure up. Now, I understand the importance of dealing with algal 
blooms and hypoxia research, but in my State of California we have many 
counties, Madam Speaker, that tragically have an unemployment rate that 
is in excess of 20 percent. We have a nationwide unemployment rate that 
is hovering right around 10 percent, 9.7 percent--it's been around 10 
percent for 7 months--and we know that millions and millions of 
Americans have lost their homes and many more continue to face either 
the threat of foreclosure or years of upside-down mortgages. Our 
deficit is $1.4 trillion, and we all know that our national debt has 
exceeded $12 trillion.
  Credit remains very scarce. We hear regularly decried from both sides 
of the aisle about working families and small business owners who 
depend on a robust financial services system. We have serious, very 
serious issues as a Nation that the American people expect us to deal 
with aggressively and responsibly. And I would argue, Madam Speaker, 
that while we are considering the algal blooms and hypoxia research 
measure under an emergency structure that was put forth by the Rules 
Committee, I'm not in any way diminishing its importance, but I think 
these issues that I just mentioned are what are on the minds of 
Americans all across this country: job creation and economic growth.
  So what is it that we do in response to the economic crisis that 
we're facing in the United States of America? It is, as I said, the 
Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments.

                              {time}  0930

  Now, Madam Speaker, I yielded to my colleague to say why it is that 
we are really here, which is the fact that we were promised 
transparency. You don't need a really, really good pair of reading 
glasses to know exactly why it is that we are here.
  Very simply, we are here because the Democratic leadership is doing 
everything that it possibly can to twist arms and to line up votes. 
Based on public opinion polling and on three elections that have been 
held within the last couple of months in Virginia, New Jersey, and 
Massachusetts, they are twisting arms to try and pass a very, very, 
very unpopular and, I believe, outrageous, horrible measure that would 
see us have the Federal Government take control of one-sixth of our 
Nation's economy.
  The most recent maneuver they were considering to ram this thing 
through was something that has been dubbed the ``Slaughter solution.'' 
Many media outlets have tried to explain to the American people what 
exactly the Slaughter solution would be. Most explanations have left 
listeners more confused and outraged than when they started. It is a 
twisted and contorted process that can make anyone's head spin, but 
this is it in a nutshell:
  Madam Speaker, the Slaughter solution is an end run around a vote in 
the House of Representatives on the health care bill. As the health 
care process has moved forward, the substance of what the Democratic 
majority is trying to accomplish has become ever more unpopular. The 
result is that they simply do not have the votes to pass a bill that 
can get to the President for his signature. We all know that.
  In the last 30 minutes, the President has announced that he is 
delaying his trip to Indonesia and to Australia. We know that they are 
doing everything within their power to try and twist arms and to 
encourage people to vote for something that is extraordinarily 
unpopular and that, I believe, would be devastating for our Nation's 
economy.
  So, Madam Speaker, what is it that you do if you don't have the 
votes? What is it that you do? Do you start over and work for a 
bipartisan solution, which is what the American people want? This is 
not a partisan issue on our part. We are saying let's take the 
commonsense approach that the American people have said we should take, 
a step-by-step approach. So is that the message that has come through?
  Do you listen? Do you listen, as many of us have, to what it is that 
the American people are saying through town hall meetings and through 
other fora, and do you incorporate their ideas into this quest that we 
all share of trying to drive health care costs down so that we can 
increase access to health insurance for our fellow Americans?
  Apparently, the answer to every single one of those, Madam Speaker, 
is ``no,'' for this Democratic majority; when you don't have the votes, 
you simply come up with a scheme to avoid a vote altogether, which is 
what the Slaughter solution is. This so-called ``Slaughter solution'' 
would allow the House to wait for the Senate to pass a fix-it package 
to their flawed health care bill. When the fix would be passed by the 
Senate, the bill would magically be deemed passed by the House without 
our ever having a transparent up-or-down vote on the original bill.
  Let's remind ourselves of a new direction for America, the document 
that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi put forward, one promising 
transparency, disclosure, accountability, and the kind of openness that 
we all aspire to, but which tragically has deteriorated over the past 3 
years.
  The approach that we have with the Slaughter solution is a hopelessly 
cynical attempt to completely upend the democratic process. It also, 
Madam Speaker, I believe, creates the potential for a real backfire. 
For months, the Democratic majority has blamed the Senate for their own 
inability to provide leadership and decisive action on the pressing 
challenges that we face, and now they want to put the fate of their 
convoluted plan on the ability of the Senate to pass a clean fix-it 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, the Senate has disappointed my Democratic colleagues 
yet again. We got the report just yesterday which seemed to undermine 
the Slaughter solution. It appears that the Senate parliamentarian will 
insist on the enactment of the Senate health care reform bill before he 
will recognize the fix-it bill as reconciliation, meaning that 
reconciliation can only be utilized to deal with existing law. That 
means, if the Democrats won't take a straight up-or-down vote on the 
bill, their only option is the light version of the Slaughter solution, 
having the bill deemed as passed by the rule and sending the Senate 
bill to the President for his signature. Now, that's what the lawyers 
call, Madam Speaker, a distinction without a difference.
  The reality is that a vote on the rule will be a vote on the Senate 
health

[[Page 3273]]

care bill, complete with all of the special interest provisions that it 
contains--the Cornhusker kickback, gator aid, the Louisiana purchase, 
these kinds of things that we have heard about. Then there are all 
sorts of hidden items in there which some friends of mine have been 
discussing with me, like promises that there won't be a middle class 
tax increase. What does the measure do? It slashes FSAs, Flexible 
Savings Accounts, which have been utilized by people who are trying to 
address their health care needs. By doing what they do in this bill, it 
will be a slap to the taxpayers of this country who are middle-income 
wage earners. Their problems don't end there. There will be, Madam 
Speaker, challenges to some proposed fixes and, therefore, changes to 
the Senate package.
  Then there is the question of the Federal funding of abortion. If 
this cannot be banned through reconciliation, would the Slaughter 
solution be further expanded to implement a fix on that issue as well? 
How would that fix make its way through the United States Senate?
  Now, with serious unanswered questions like these, why would any 
Member of this House take the bait and support the Slaughter solution, 
even in its light version, by deeming a measure passed with the passage 
of a rule? There is a high probability that House Democrats would be 
forced into taking the tough votes they tried so hard to avoid after 
putting themselves on record as supporting an end run around a real 
transparent vote.
  In the end, Madam Speaker, rank-and-file Democrats would be making 
themselves all the more vulnerable for having supported their 
leadership's egregious tactics. The Slaughter solution is bad policy, 
bad process, and bad politics. The fact that the Democratic leadership 
is pursuing this option exposes its unwillingness to abandon the most 
fundamental element of legislating. The most fundamental element of 
being a deliberative body is a transparent up-or-down vote, and they 
are doing that in order to achieve what everyone recognizes, based on 
public opinion polling. And I don't make my decisions based on public 
opinion polling; I make my decisions on what I think is right, but it 
just so happens that public opinion overwhelmingly has pointed to this 
as a very, very, very unpopular, unpopular proposal.
  Today, on which I have just had an exchange with my colleague from 
North Haven, they are hiding behind blooming algae as they twist arms 
and try to work their backroom deals. But, Madam Speaker, your 
leadership cannot hide forever. If the Democratic majority proceeds 
with its plan to ram through their health care bill without actually 
holding a vote, it's going to take more than algae to protect them from 
the American public's outrage.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I had no idea that we were here 
to debate health care this morning, but I appreciate that the 
gentleman, my friend from California, has brought up the differences 
between us. I would like to make a couple of points.
  First off, we are here today to take up this bill that could have 
been done under a suspension; but as I understand, my colleague voted 
``no'' when this bill originally came to the floor, which is why we're 
back here today--to pass what is a relatively simple, I agree, piece of 
legislation but what is very important in coastal districts like mine.
  Yes, we do have a disagreement on health care legislation, and I wish 
that your caucus were doing what my caucus is doing right now, which is 
going through the health care legislation that we hope to bring to this 
floor soon, line by line, to make sure that we are confident this is 
excellent legislation to move forward the cause of health care reform, 
something on which he and I don't agree.
  I support very strongly and am looking forward to the debate that we 
will have on this floor about that health care legislation, and I am 
thrilled with the year and a half that I have spent here and with the 
number of hours that the committees and Members on both sides of the 
aisle, Republicans and Democrats, have put in in crafting health care 
legislation. Now, we may not agree on the final product, and that will 
come down to a vote. You're right. It will depend on making sure that 
we have enough votes on our side of the aisle, and I am glad that we 
are making sure that everyone feels confident about that vote.
  You know, it was interesting. I, as you know, am a freshman, so I 
wasn't here in previous years when you were. But when you talk about 
arm-twisting and about getting votes, I am reminded of the stories that 
I've heard about passing the prescription drug legislation, and about 
what it took for the other party, in the middle of the night and with a 
vote open for many hours, to pass a piece of legislation. I have to 
say, from my perch as a former State legislator from a State where the 
cost of prescription drugs is crippling the health care costs for many 
of our senior citizens, I was shocked to see what that final piece of 
legislation came to be. I am thrilled that our health care legislation, 
which I believe will be on this floor soon, will fix some of the 
problems in there, but, I'm sorry to say, not all.
  I remember hearing about that legislation. Was it 2 hours or was it 3 
hours in the middle of the night when people were convinced to change 
their votes so as to get the votes, and when every minute counted to 
get one more vote? That was the legislation that left us with this 
tremendous doughnut hole of which our senior citizens talk to me every 
day. Frankly, that's the public opinion polling that I hear about when 
I go back to my district.
  Yet it's not a public opinion poll. It's senior citizens who come up 
to me and ask, Do you see what it costs me to buy my prescription 
drugs? Do you see what happens when I get into the doughnut hole?
  Here is what they really ask me. They ask, How could the Republican 
Party, in the middle of the night and in twisting arms for every vote, 
pass a piece of legislation that doesn't allow us to negotiate with the 
pharmaceutical manufacturers for the price of prescription drugs? I can 
tell you, in my home State of Maine, this was an issue for years.
  When I first got elected in 1992 to my State legislature, senior 
citizens came up to me and asked, Do you see what it costs me to buy my 
prescription drugs? Then, every year, it got worse and worse and worse 
as the pharmaceutical manufacturers, which are some of the wealthiest 
corporations and multinational corporations in this country, were able 
to sell their drugs at the highest prices in the world to senior 
citizens in America. Those people had to pay cash for their 
prescription drugs. Those people had to decide whether to put heating 
oil in their tanks to keep warm or put food on their tables.
  The Republicans came to the point where they could have changed the 
law like they've done in Canada or like they've done in virtually every 
other country in the world. They could have done what they're always 
telling us: Be like a good business, have good business practices. You 
know, I own a small business. I wouldn't think of buying something I 
didn't negotiate for. Well, that's what that bill said. It said we 
won't negotiate. In fact, we'll give them sweetheart deals. We'll say 
to our senior citizens, You know what? You're going to pay the highest 
prices in the world, so there will be no cost savings. These are the 
same Republicans who tell us now there aren't enough cost savings in 
our health care bill. They use it as an excuse, but that was what was 
done in the dark of the night, for 3 hours, in holding open a debate.
  Do you know how I first found out about this? I got on a bus with 
senior citizens from the State of Maine. Let me tell you how it worked. 
We'd stop in Biddeford, Maine. Then we'd go to Portland, Maine. Then 
we'd go to Lewiston, Maine. We'd stop at places all along the State of 
Maine, and we'd drive all the way up to the Canadian border. We'd get 
all the way to the Canadian border, and we'd visit with a duly licensed 
physician so that they could have their prescriptions rewritten and 
they could take them across

[[Page 3274]]

the Canadian border legally. So then we'd go to a Canadian drug store. 
This is a busload of senior citizens. We'd go into that Canadian drug 
store, and they'd buy their prescriptions. I want to tell you about one 
person I sat next to on one of the many bus trips.
  I sat next to a person who had to take Tamoxifen, which is a 
wonderful drug that we're glad we have for breast cancer, but this 
person takes 30 pills a month. At that point, I think it cost her about 
$150 a month for her 30 pills. When we got across the Canadian border, 
it was $12.35. In my opinion, that was highway robbery. Do you know why 
that was? Because the Canadian Government, just like every other 
Western nation, requires that they negotiate for the best prices 
possible.
  So, as far as I'm concerned, that's what should have been in that 
prescription drug plan that was decided in the middle of the night when 
arms were twisted to get every last vote. That is what should be: 
closing the doughnut hole and lowering prescription drug prices in the 
health care bill that we will debate soon.

                              {time}  0945

  As far as I am concerned, I am thrilled that members of my caucus are 
here today to go through line by line, to make sure that we are getting 
the best possible health care plan we can get. And I will say, it is 
not going to be everything I want in a health care plan.
  I come from the State of Maine. Our doctors think that single payer 
ought to be the health care plan in Maine, and I am right there with 
them, but I know that is not what we are going to get to vote on here 
on the floor. But I am anxious to make sure that we get the best 
possible compromise, and I would be thrilled if some of the members of 
your caucus would vote for that bill. I would be thrilled.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to yield to my colleague to engage in a colloquy, if I 
might, so we might have a discussion.
  I found it very interesting, very interesting, Madam Speaker, that 
she talked about that amazing drug that is used for breast cancer, and, 
unfortunately, the huge disparity in the cost that that woman she was 
riding on the bus had in Canada versus the United States of America. 
There is an important reason for that, Madam Speaker, and that is the 
fact that we want to make sure that there are more amazing drugs 
created.
  There are many very serious ailments that exist out there today, and 
one of the things that we have as our great comparative advantage here 
in the United States of America is that we are the center for research 
and innovation. And, unfortunately, we have had to shoulder the 
financial burden for that research so that that woman riding on the bus 
with my friend from North Haven was able to have a drug that would 
never have been developed had it not been for the kind of innovation 
that exists here in the United States of America.
  I would like to yield to my friend to see if she would recognize that 
the innovation and creativity that exists in the United States of 
America is what allowed that friend of hers on the bus to have.
  I am happy to yield whatever amount of time my friend consumes from 
my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Well, thank you so much for yielding your time 
and for allowing me to address this topic, and even though we are here 
to address algal blooms, I appreciate the chance to go back and forth 
on this important topic.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me just say, Madam Speaker, that I am very happy that 
we are here to address an issue that is of concern to the American 
people. With all due respect to the importance of algal blooms and 
hypoxia research, I believe what we are talking about today is much 
more important. And the thing we should be talking about is not 
something that happened 5 years ago, which, frankly, many, many seniors 
are benefiting from, but what we should talk about is what is about to 
happen and what is happening behind closed doors throughout this 
Capitol at this moment.
  I am happy to further yield to my friend.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you. And just to answer your point, I, 
too, think it is essential that we continue our research and 
development here in this country. Frankly, much of it is done around 
the world on research and development. But I don't think that 
negotiating for a better price, that lowering the prices to our senior 
citizens, would cost us research and development. And, frankly----
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time just to say to 
my friend that she is right. She is right, Madam Speaker, that there 
are other parts of the world where research and innovation are taking 
place. But it all pales, it pales in comparison to the kind of research 
and development that takes place here in the United States.
  I would like to ask my colleague, Madam Speaker, if she would support 
making permanent the research and development tax credit so that we 
could have the kind of incentive for our pharmaceutical industry and 
others out there who are creating these innovative new ideas to deal 
with Alzheimer's and cancer and diabetes and other ailments that exist. 
Madam Speaker, would she be supportive of the notion of our pursuing 
that kind of incentive to deal with these problems that can play a role 
in driving costs down?
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. First off, I would prefer to answer you on my 
own time, because it seems to me when you yield me your time, you 
usually answer for me. So I would rather wait until I have my time.
  Mr. DREIER. I just asked the question on my own time. I am happy to 
yield to my friend. I asked a question, and I would welcome your 
answer.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I have to say I am unprepared to answer your 
question about the research and development tax credit for the 
pharmaceutical industry--I know that I have industries in my State that 
benefit from that tax credit--before I say yes or no about the solution 
that you are proposing.
  But I do want to go back to one other thing----
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me just say, because I control the 
time----
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. See, I don't think you are letting me finish my 
answer, so you go ahead.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to my friend further, 
but the gentlewoman has chosen to say she doesn't know whether or not 
she would support making permanent the research and development tax 
credit, when we all know that would play a critical role in driving 
costs down for our seniors and others.
  Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is we are here at this juncture 
dealing with a measure that may be important to some, but this measure 
was considered, as I said, under an emergency structure upstairs in the 
Rules Committee.
  Now, I ask the question, when the President made his decision to 
delay his trip to Indonesia and Australia from March 18 to March 21 or 
22, was that so that he could deal with the emergency of signing 
legislation dealing with algal blooms and hypoxia research? I don't 
think so. But that is the measure, as my friend said, she wanted to 
discuss here on the House floor today, when in fact we know, we know 
that arm-twisting is taking place. And to liken, to liken the structure 
that is taking place with what happened 5 years ago is preposterous.
  It is true, it is true that under the rules of the House that vote 
may have been left open, and as a by-product of that we have seen 
literally millions and millions of seniors have access to affordable 
prescription drugs.
  Madam Speaker, I have to say that that pales in comparison to this 
unprecedented and outrageous structure that is being utilized, that is 
being utilized to ram down the throats of the American people something 
that they don't want.
  Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I will just say a couple of more 
things again.

[[Page 3275]]

  I am thrilled that the President has decided to focus all of his 
energy on health care. I think that the people of this country have 
waited long enough for health care reform, and I am anxious to see it 
come to this floor. I am anxious to see us bring it to final passage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say that I was just reminded by my staff, Madam Speaker, and I 
have got a couple of articles that were just handed to me here today, 
about this process issue. I regularly argue that process is substance. 
And excuse me, I am not talking, by the way, about algal blooms or 
hypoxia research. I am talking about this convoluted process known as 
the ``Slaughter solution.''
  For some strange reason, the Democratic leadership has said that, 
regardless of what the Senate is going to do, we are going to proceed 
with taking our action here, when reconciliation itself is a Senate 
process. That was designed, as we all know, it is called budget 
reconciliation, put into place in the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act. 
It was put into place by Senator Byrd, and the goal of providing an 
opportunity for reconciliation, budget reconciliation, was so that 
there could be an opportunity to deal with tax increases or spending 
cuts.
  I will say, the last time we dealt with meaningful spending cuts 
under this kind of structure was when we tried to tackle the issue of 
entitlement reform, and we were able to bring about a very, very modest 
$40 billion reduction. I think that we need to work harder on that and 
we need to utilize that process in doing it.
  But what we are seeing right now and these reports that are out 
there, the confusion that exists in this House, and certainly with the 
American people, who are just casual observers of this, is that this is 
not what we were promised, Madam Speaker. It is not what we were 
promised.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I have no further requests for time, and I will 
continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it looks like my friend from Texas is here 
and would like to be recognized. I am happy to yield to my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I appreciate so much the points my friend 
from California has been making. Here there have been discussions about 
health care and the White House wanting to take that over for the 
American people, and it really is highlighted by something that I ran 
into just this morning at the White House.
  Now, we know from the prior hearings that were held that apparently 
the Social Secretary had a meeting with people at security at the White 
House and decided to change protocol so she wouldn't be there, and so 
some people got waved in that shouldn't have gotten waved in. As a 
result, what has happened now, with Members of Congress, it used to be 
that if you gave 24 hours' notice with Social Security numbers, date of 
birth, all that kind of thing, you could get six people into the White 
House at 8 o'clock, 7:45, something like that the next morning. Now, 
under this White House that was changed to where they want 48 hours. 
Okay, fine.
  As a result of the incompetent handling over letting people into the 
White House that shouldn't have been, not by the Secret Service, not by 
the armed guards there--now they have doubled the number of guards that 
are out there--they now make both Members of Congress and those people 
who are obviously law-abiding and have had their security checked and 
double-checked with not one smudge on their record, now they have to go 
clear down a block away to 15th Street and go through security there.
  The Member of Congress, like today in the rain, has to go down a 
block and then go through security there, with double the number of 
guards, and then come up and go through security again and go through 
guards again, all not because Secret Service messed up or the armed 
guards that are now doubled in number, but because somebody in the 
White House staff screwed up. Now they are deciding to punish Members 
of Congress and law-abiding citizens that normally just get in.
  The point here is that this is a circus over there. Nobody seems to 
know what is going on. When accountability was demanded and the Social 
Secretary was requested by Members of Congress to come testify, they 
said, ``We are not going to let you come testify.''
  The same thing happened on the Auto Task Force. Could you have them 
at least come tell us about their secret meetings, these czars and all 
that stuff? ``We are not going to be accountable.''
  It is a circus going on over there, and now the people in the circus 
want to be in charge of your health care. Good grief. It is time to say 
we don't want clowns in charge of something as important as our health 
care. I don't even want them in charge of algal blooms.
  With that, I appreciate the time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful 
remarks.
  Let me just close--I know my colleague is prepared to do the same--by 
making a couple of comments.
  I began by pointing to the fact that in California we have a number 
of counties with an unemployment rate in excess of 20 percent. In part 
of the area I represent in suburban Los Angeles, we have an 
unemployment rate in excess of 14 percent. We have, obviously, 
tremendous numbers of home foreclosures and small business people are 
unable to gain access to credit.
  I believe that we can get our economy growing boldly, strongly, and 
dynamically, with bipartisanship--and I underscore that term 
``bipartisan,'' Madam Speaker--by utilizing the John F. Kennedy-Ronald 
Reagan approach with marginal tax rate reduction which, during the 
1960s under John F. Kennedy and the 1980s under Ronald Reagan, 
stimulated economic growth by reducing marginal tax rates and doubled, 
doubled the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.
  Everyone is decrying the $1.4 trillion deficit and the $12 trillion 
debt that we have today. And what is it we are doing? We are sitting 
here with a discussion about algal blooms and hypoxia research, and we 
are witnessing arm-twisting to see the Federal Government take control 
of one-sixth of our economy, while the American people want us to focus 
on job creation and economic growth.

                              {time}  1000

  We can be doing that, Madam Speaker, if we can refocus our attention 
to where it is that the American people want us to be. And I urge a 
``no'' vote on this rule.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague from California.
  We have had a lively debate this morning on a whole variety of 
issues. I had no idea I was going to have the pleasure of coming to the 
floor to talk about the bus trips with senior citizens, about the 
prescription drug debate in the middle of the night and many of the 
things that have been part of our process for years before I was ever 
here. And I thank you for that opportunity to go back and forth on 
those issues.
  I appreciate your thoughts and our differences of opinion on this 
issue of health care reform. I want to reiterate we are here today on 
the issue of algal blooms and red tide and a variety of things that are 
important to my constituents here in Maine.
  The reason this bill is here on this floor today is because many of 
those on the other side of the aisle, including my Republican 
colleague, whom we have been going back and forth with today, Mr. 
Dreier, voted ``no'' on the bill when it first hit the floor and we are 
taking up again.
  I would like to close and stick to the topic for a minute and let us 
move forward with our business today making sure that we continue to 
bring more bills around jobs here, and I hope that we have some 
Republican votes on our future jobs bill and certainly on our health 
care bill.

[[Page 3276]]

  In closing, I just want to say that the 2009 red tide in Maine hit 
our coastal communities hard. Most shellfish harvesters are self-
employed and make the majority of their living in the summer months. 
Every day, shellfish harvesters were calling the State agencies and 
asking for help with mortgages payments, utility bills, doctor bills, 
car payments, and even food. In my State and in many coastal States, 
these are jobs. These are jobs that keep families working through the 
summer and help them get through the winter.
  The economic impact of closing much of the coast to shellfish 
harvesters, aquaculturists and related businesses was conservatively 
estimated to be between $1.6 million and $2.5 million each week. This 
is real money to coastal States in every corner of this country.
  This bill will make a difference for coastal communities. With 
improved testing and tracking, scientists will be able to accurately 
identify localized areas. This means that smaller portions of the coast 
will be shut down instead of entire regions. In addition, it will build 
on so much of the good work that has already been done, improve our 
prediction and monitoring capabilities, and take steps to mitigate the 
impact of red tide and other HABs. We need a national program dedicated 
to coordinating and integrating Federal resources to minimize or even 
prevent HABs in both fresh and saltwater. Enhanced coordination will 
help resource managers make better decisions, and with better decisions 
will come less economic hardship in our coastal communities.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________